Rich v. Hallman
| Decision Date | 03 August 1932 |
| Parties | RICH v. HALLMAN. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Alice B. Rich, a widow, against Isabella Hallman, a widow. Decree for defendant, and complainant appeals.
Reversed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; H. F Atkinson, judge.
Kurtz & Reed, of Miami, for appellant.
George M. Thompson and Botts & Field, all of Miami, for appellee.
The appellant exhibited her bill of complaint in the circuit court of Dade county praying for the cancellation of an assignment of a note and mortgage to the appellee. Answer to the bill was duly entered; a general master was appointed who took the testimony and made his finding to the effect that the assignment of the note and mortgage was made under misapprehension or delusion and was obtained under circumstances constituting fraud upon complainant, against which equity should grant relief. Exceptions to the master's report were sustained by the chancellor, and his final decree was entered holding the assignment to be valid and to be the voluntary act of the complainant. To that final decree this appeal was prosecuted.
The decisive question brought here for solution is whether or not the assignment of the note and mortgage by appellant to appellee should be permitted to stand.
The record discloses that the appellant, who was complainant below, was 76 years of age, an invalid, confined to her bed and wheel chair. She was unable to walk, and was dependent on others to administer the comforts of life. She was possessed of an income of $1,000 per month, was of vacillating disposition, and could not recall past transactions, except in a most general way. The appellee, who was defendant below was much younger than the complainant, and was employed by her (complainant) as a trained nurse and personal attendant at a salary of $100 per month and expenses. The defendant was of alert mind, her services were very satisfactory, and she was placed in charge of the household and personal affairs of the complainant.
Soon after defendant's employment, through the influence of herself and that of friends, complainant became obsessed with a delusion that defendant's services were exceptionally valuable to her and could not be duplicated and that she would resign unless a substantial increase in salary or a considerable bonus was offered her to continue in her service. While under this delusion, the complainant offered the defendant a bonus of $10,000 to remain with her as long as she lived; the said bonus to be paid by assigning a certain $5,000 note and mortgage, being the identical note and mortgage involved in this litigation, to defendant, and by increasing her (defendant's) regular monthly salary check to the sum of $300 per month till the remaining $5,000 was paid.
No record whatever of this agreement was made, nor was provision made for the payment of any balance of the $5,000 that might still be due in the event of the death of the complainant before the salary increase had amounted to that sum. No penalty was imposed in the event of the resignation of the defendant before the death of the complainant, and no rebate was provided to complainant in the event of the illness or death of defendant before that of the complainant. Several payments were made on the monthly salary increase and the first interest installment due on the note assigned after assignment was made to the defendant.
The bill to cancel was filed as soon as complainant discovered she was not receiving the interest on the mortgage, and alleges that the assignment was not genuine, that it was obtained through the trickery and deceit of defendant, with intent to deceive complainant, was made without any consideration, and that, if complainant did in fact execute said assignment, she was wholly ignorant of the nature of the instrument or the legal effect thereof.
The complainant denies positively that she executed the assignment, and asserts that she has no idea how it was obtained. The notary who is supposed to have taken the acknowledgment also disclaims any knowledge of it. At the time defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saliba v. James
...this view are, viz.: In re Donnelly's Estate, 137 Fla. 459, 188 So. 108; Lockwood v. Walker, 127 Fla. 20, 172 So. 359; Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292; Sheppard v. Cherry, 118 Fla. 473, 159 So. Sapp v. Warner, 105 Fla. 245, 141 So. 124, 143 So. 648, 144 So. 481; Douglas v. Ogle, ......
-
Reddaway's Estate, In re
...Bolander v. Thompson, 1943, 57 Cal.App.2d 444, 134 P.2d 924; In re Schwartz's Estate, 1940, 340 Pa. 170, 16 A.2d 374; Rich v. Hallman, 1932, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292; Hyatt v. Wroten, 1931, 184 Ark. 847, 43 S.W.2d 726; Mors v. Peterson, 1914, 261 Ill. 532, 104 N.E. 216. See also, Note, Und......
-
In re Aldrich's Estate
...and the burden of proof on the issue of undue influence, were not definitely ruled upon. In the opinion of Mr. Justice Terrell in Rich v. Hallman, supra, which involved the validity of a gift inter vivos, wherein it held that in such cases a presumption of undue influence arose from confide......
-
Lamb v. Jones
...exists) has the burden of establishing the bona fides of the transfer. See: Bolles v. O'Brien, 63 Fla. 342, 59 So. 133; Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292; Adams v. Saunders, 139 Fla. 730, 191 So. 312; Crane v. Stulz, Fla.App.1961, 136 So.2d 238. By a preponderance of the evidence, ......
-
Florida's new statutory presumption of undue influence: does it change the law or merely clarify?
...because the chief beneficiary failed to meet his burden of proof. (13) Shifting Burden of Proof in Disputed Gift Cases In Rich v. Hallman, 143 So. 292, 293 (Fla. 1932), a 76-year-old invalid had purportedly gifted a note and mortgage to her nurse/personal attendant. In determining whether t......
-
Challenging inter vivos transfers procured by undue influence: factors to consider.
...because of the death of one of the principals to the transaction, the testator." The Florida Supreme Court determined in Rich v. Hallman, 143 So. 292 (Fla. 1932), that "the degree of proof necessary to invalidate a will is much greater than that required to set aside a gift inter Preliminar......